"The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation by surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard. Their mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded." ~ Vance Packard

If this inherent deception is indeed true, then we should suppose that the most revered political speeches and documents are in fact the greatest of deceptions, and we would expect these masterpieces to be associated with the epic political events of history (here is one example).

The rejection of the English government by the American colonists certainly qualifies as an epic political event and not many would argue that the Declaration of Independence qualifies as a masterpiece in the pantheon of political documents. Superlatives have been exhausted in describing this document and any sharp criticism is near impossible to find, with "magnificent but flawed" being about as harsh as one may encounter.

After all, it was the first political document to recognize that all human beings are created with equal inalienable rights. The very heart of libertarian thought was being used as a basis for an original and radical type of government that promised to issue in a shining new era of human freedom and enlightenment. The Divine Right of Kings doctrine was to be banished this side of the pond, as the common man would now step forward and replace the monarchs in a new system of government that was to be based on the consent of equally and inalienably rights-endowed human beings.

So goes the popular interpretation. But the Declaration of Independence was a political statement framing a truly epic political event—the birth of a new government. True, the Constitution and the actual birth of the new nation was not to follow for another eleven years, but the Declaration of Independence stated quite clearly the intent of its authors—the eventual creation of a new government.

But if our suspicions of inherent political deception are to be confirmed, what was the truth that the Declaration of Independence set out to obscure?

Since it was hailed as a declaration for the desire to create a new type of government based on the consent of the governed—one that would respect the individual rights of all human beings and in doing so reject the Divine Right of Kings doctrine—then we should suspect that this document is in fact merely the Divine Right of Kings doctrine incognito.

Let’s dig in and see:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,

Right off the bat we see the document is written about the plural "one people" and not the individual. This will not change throughout the course of the entire document.

and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station

Governments, not individuals, are said to be the powers of the earth, and this particular group of people wish to add another member to this exclusive club.

to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

And now natural law is invoked to justify the existence of government. Natural law implies universality across time and space. By declaring government as being in accordance with natural law, then there can be no discussion as to if government should or should not exist, rather only what kind of government should exist. The authors are stating that it is unnatural for human beings not to have government, and that all humans who have ever lived, are living, or will ever live should be subject to some type of government rule.

Now, one of government’s raisons d'état is the manufacture of positive law. Positive law then becomes a subset and inevitable consequence of natural law and government. This leads to the conclusion that positive law is in fact natural law.

Additionally, the authors couldn’t resist invoking God here. Not only is natural law natural, it is in accordance with Nature’s God. Read the words. God entitles governments to exist. Government is declared a divine institution right there in the Declaration of Independence.

And let’s not forget that government is made up of human beings—human beings with a divine mandate to rule. I’m not quite seeing the rejection of the Divine Right of Kings doctrine here.

a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Actually, no. What was necessary was sufficient force to resist the English government’s attempt to subdue them. But how fortunate that they won, and this document could then be held up as a moral and ethical lesson of how good triumphs over evil.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Profound truths have been stated here, and I have no argument with them. However, it has nothing to do with the rest of the content of this document. It is merely the hook—the sexy model sitting on the hood of the sports car. It has nothing to do with the product, but it sure helps sell it.

The all men are created equal phrase is commonly pointed to as another rejection of the Divine Right of Kings doctrine. Kings and other royalty are not inherently superior to any other human beings, and so have no innate right to rule over others. Invoking natural law here, applying it to the individual, would be the logical support for this argument. But natural law has already been invoked in this document—as a rationale for the existence of sovereign governments, not sovereign individuals.

And so the misdirection has been performed. While you were thinking this, they were saying that. The illusion is that the authors were asserting their inalienable right to freedom as sovereign individuals wishing to extract themselves from government control, a downright noble endeavor. But in fact the authors are actually declaring that they have the right, as a group, to split off and form yet another government, the previous sentence notwithstanding.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

And now that the audience’s attention has been misdirected with fine words about individual rights, the prestidigitation is executed. Governments cannot exist without restricting the rights of men, and so the claim being made here is that in order for rights to be secured, they must be taken. Inalienable rights and government are necessarily mortal enemies, but this document has alchemized the two into a shiny new element.

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

And yet another rejection of the Divine Right of Kings doctrine appears. Only by the consent of the governed, not by divine decree, are governments to be instituted.

Except if you remember, the document has already declared that governments are in fact instituted by divine decree. Therefore any individual who does not consent to government is taking up a position contrary to natural law, which places the individual, not the government, in the position of acting in an unjust manner. Love it or leave it, but if you leave, you are obligated to give your consent to be governed by someone else. The individual’s inalienable right to freedom has just been declared null and void.

The remainder of the paragraph goes on to explain how the People (again, plural) have the right to rise up and violently overthrow government (but only if things get really bad) and replace it with another. Dissatisfied individuals have no choice but to stick with the program until a critical mass of disenchanted People decide to break out the long knives and start slitting throats. The violent mob will then install a new government based on their honorable consent. Everybody sing: Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss…

After a list of grievances, the conclusion of the document includes the following:

… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

Read those words carefully, the summation of what the Declaration of Independence is all about, and see if you can find the libertarian theme therein.

The Declaration of Independence was an argument made by a government-to-be, addressed to other governments. It had nothing at all to do with individual human beings and their inalienable rights, although it gives the illusion of doing so.

Deception: Expected and detected. Case closed.

A group of people wanted to extract themselves from the control of one government and establish a new government for themselves. New politicians wished to take control of the wealth over which the old politicians reigned. Let's see, they thought to themselves, how can we make this transfer of power sound just? How can we appropriate the Divine Right of Kings for ourselves but at the same time make it look like we are actually rejecting that doctrine? How can we remake the facade of government so that the masses think we have something new and exciting here? How can we fool the herd into thinking that they themselves are participants in the halls of power, and that those who previously ruled over them—the hated government officials—would now be their servants? In other words, how can we make the sheeple believe the exact opposite of the truth while we, the wolves, carry on with business as usual?

Comments

Great article, Tom. Thought you might like to know, though, that the 'priesthood' has perverted the Divine Right of Kings doctrine, like they have so many other things. The Divine Right of Kings pertains to all men, we are all born Sovereigns-Without-Subjects. Here is are three verses from the King James Bible that are prima facie evidence of this fact.

Peter is not talking to some select little group of wannabe rulers, he is speaking to everyone who has "come out from among them", i.e. seceded from the governments of men, and returned to God's Kingdom, which is, in my opinion, the Natural Kingdom.

When we "withdraw from membership" in the group, i.e. state citizenry, we are "civilly dead" and therefore no longer "subject to ordinances...after the commandments and doctrines of men", so don't "touch" them, "taste" them or "handle them", they are not for you and you will perish with the using.

Agreed, Tom, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America was not perfect, and may have even been designed to deceive, however, according to that document, "all men are created equal", in that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", means that the Divine Right of Kings doctrine applies to all men (and women), equally, which it apparently did mean, according to the KJV, before being perverted by those desiring power over other men. The declaration declared that we are all "sovereigns without subjects" and that our individual freedom is to be restricted only by the "Laws of Nature", that is to say the "Natural Law of Man". http://www.panarchy.org/spooner/law.1882.html

Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles [nations] exercise lordship [rule] over them; and they that exercise authority [control] upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for a man to dissolve the bands which have connected him with a body politic, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature and Nature’s God entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the cause(s) which impel him to the separation.
″We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights″[1], rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental[2], that among these are Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property, and that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the governed, – and whenever any Government becomes destructive of these Inalienable Rights, every man has the Lawful Authority to Withdraw his Consent, and to return to the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature[3] and Nature’s God entitles him. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be Seceded from for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by Withdrawing from the governments to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to Secede from such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of this Man; and such is now the necessity that constrains this Man to Secede from this Government. The history of the United States Government, rather than securing, has a record of repeated injuries to, and usurpation of, Man’s Inalienable Rights, all having as their direct objective the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over men.
I, Given Name therefore, being a Lawful Man, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Creator of the heavens, the earth and the seas, and all that in them is, solemnly publish and declare, this Man is, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent, that he is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States, and any and all States under the authority of the United States, and that all political connection between him and the aforementioned States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Man, I have full Power to Arm and Protect Myself, my Loved Ones, and my justly acquired Possessions, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Trade, Possess Land, Travel Freely and to do all other Acts and Things which Free and Independent Men may of right do.

Name in Upper and lower case: ________________________________________ Seal:

First Witness: _____________________________________________

Second Witness: _____________________________________________

1 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America [Declaration of Independence]
2 Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, copyright 1991, page 1057
3 The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. - Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Profound truths have been stated here, and I have no argument with them. However, it has nothing to do with the rest of the content of this document. It is merely the hook—the sexy model sitting on the hood of the sports car. It has nothing to do with the product, but it sure helps sell it." ~ tzo

Something else that should literally jump out at us, Tom, is what is blatantly missing among these enumerated "unalienable Rights", i.e. "property", especially since we know that all the other rights hinge on self-ownership [property in one's self] and since this phraseology was adapted from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, which begins this way:

I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

I feel that this flagrant omission was no mere oversight and I also find my antenna going up because George did not write "they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest themselves or their posterity".

"Love it or leave it, but if you leave, you are obligated to give your consent to be governed by someone else. The individual’s inalienable right to freedom has just been declared null and void." ~ tzo

Not so, my friend, the individual's right to liberty has not "been declared null and void", not if he chooses individual secession rather than expatriation; these are two entirely different acts.

“The right of self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent from an oppressive government. That is the only really effective restriction on power, in the last analysis.” ~ Clyde Wilson, Secession: The Last, Best Bulwark of Our Liberties

"In the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements and so great a dread of experiments that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so." ~ Excerpted from The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer http://tinyurl.com/2d2vz44

Of course you are correct, but that goes against what the DOI declares. If you consider the entire paragraph from which you pulled that quote, my point is that the DOI considers governments, not individuals, as the sovereign entities upon the Earth and to not belong to one is to violate natural law.

Thank you for your reply. As I have stated elsewhere on STR the DOI is not perfect, which is why, in my personal declaration of secession, I "corrected" it (see above), but IMO it does not declare that every individual must belong to a man-made government, nor does it state that "individual secession" is a violation of the natural law, in fact, IMO, it declares just the opposite by stating emphatically that it is a "self-evident" truth that "men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these' [is] 'Liberty". If men have a just claim (an individual right) to liberty, then they must certainly have the right to secede from oppressive governments.

I have concluded that the safest and surest "Declaration of Independence/Formal Notice of Secession" is one loosely based on the formal notice of secession used by the original thirteen colonies, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. I came to this conclusion because in order for the United States, (and it's subsidiary governments), to not "legally recognize" this formal notice of secession it would simultaneously be refusing to "legally recognize" its own formal notice of secession, which would be tantamount[1] to denying its own legal existence.

"Let not any be alarmed, therefore, at the promulgation of the foregoing doctrine. There are many changes yet to be passed through before it can begin to exercise much influence. Probably a long time will elapse before the right to ignore the state will be generally admitted, even in theory. It will be still longer before it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty of checks upon the premature exercise of it. A sharp experience will sufficiently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. While, in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements and so great a dread of experiments that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so." ~ Excerpted from The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer